United
States v. Bracey,
56 MJ 387 (the protections for military personnel against
double
jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United
States and
Article 44, UCMJ, 10 USC § 844, apply only to judicial punishments, not
to
nonjudicial punishments under Article 15; it is Article 15(f) that
prevents the
accused from being punished twice for the same offense as a matter of
statutory
law even though such successive punishment is otherwise permissible as
a matter
of constitutional law).

2001

United
States v. Promin, 54 MJ 467 (nether the Double
Jeopardy
Clause nor Article 44, UCMJ, prohibits the forfeiture of pay and
allowances
imposed by operation of Article 58b, UCMJ; cumulative sentences imposed
in a
single trial do not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause where the
punishment
prescribed is no greater than the legislature intended).

(automatic forfeiture of pay and allowances under Article 58b, UCMJ,
is not
an instance of an individual being twice put in jeopardy; rather, there
is but
one proceeding, as a result of which an accused receives multiple
punishments
as authorized and intended by Congress).

2000

United
States v. Heryford, 52 MJ 265 (double jeopardy
claims,
including those founded in multiplicity, are waived by failure to make
a timely
motion to dismiss, unless they rise to the level of plain error).

1999

United
States v. Gammons, 51 MJ 169 (the defense of former
jeopardy in
military law, as established in Article 44, UCMJ, does not extend to
cases in
which there has been prior nonjudicial punishment for the same act or
omission;
similarly, Article 15(f), UCMJ, provides that nonjudicial punishment is
not a
bar to trial by court-martial for a serious offense or crime growing
out of the
same act or omission).